What makes a serious flightsimmer? There are probably as many answers to that question as there are contributors to this site. In my
opinion, a serious flightsimmer is one who addresses a desire to experience flight by using a simulator. There are many serious "simmers"
out there who I would not classify as true flightsimmers. They are more likely to be found flying a complex heavy iron panel in and out of
major airports, setting up the flight as an adventure in knob twiddling and command following, enjoying the need to point a set of dials
and displays to reflect a carefully choreographed routine at each end of a "flight".
To me a true flightsimmer is one who climbs into a virtual cockpit and experiences as closely as possible the sounds and sights and the joy
of flying, of being lofted above the earth, able to look down at scenery that with a little imagination is perceived as really there below, able
to ride the air currents with the birds, who so long ago discovered the joys of ‘being up
there’. To be able to seriously simulate a cross country flight one day, and the next take
one’s fancied plane up and do things that would be stupid or impossible in the real world,
such as an aileron roll on final, or high speed low level aerobatics over a city, or zooming
between skyscrapers at street level. Even to climb behind a complex panel and do a
commuter run with rules and regulations to follow, as long as the experience includes the
sensation that flying is involved; then it can be considered as flight simulation.
For me, the simulation of the flying experience starts more than anything else with the feeling of being in a cockpit, sitting in the pilot’s seat, with the correct perspective of the panel and windows in front of me. Trying to experience flying a plane from a jumpseat perspective just doesn’t cut it. You might as well program a virtual pilot to perform the flying functions and sit back with arms folded, as you would if that’s where you were sitting in the real thing.
The next critical aspect of the flying experience is the scenery. Flying around between polygons, pyramids and jumbles of meaningless
textures is only half the experience that flying in decent scenery can be. I still devote at least half my flightsimming time to Flight Unlimited
II and III precisely because I feel much more like I’m flying around a landscape rather than a collection of textures and objects. To be able
to take off in a Mustang from a small airstrip on a ridgeline in the San Francisco or Seattle sceneries, and roar down through sculptured
rounded canyons and valleys, across highways and rivers flashing by in a blur
under your wings. Then roll inverted as you crest a
ridge before sliding down the next valley upside down, flicking upright again just in
time to roar up the opposite slope and perform more aileron rolls, as the Merlin
effortlessly powers you several thousand feet above the landscape. Looking
down and picking out a canyon that leads to the sea, and following it through
twists and turns never rising high enough to see the horizon until you barrel out
the end a few feet above the waves. Pulling back on the stick and gaining
height gently until an airport emerges from the haze, diving down and
flashing past the control tower who admonishes you for spilling his coffee, before
bleeding off airspeed and lining up for an approach into a runway that is
realistically blended into the landscape until you’re relatively close, THAT is a
‘flight simulation’ experience.
The third aspect that I find important is the ‘feel’ of the flight model. If a
simulator merely tilts and turns the scenery in response to inputs, without inertia
effects, it’s no better than some of the shoot 'em up flying games you find in the
bargain bins at local superstores. If it is difficult to line up on a runway without
having every correction to the heading result in an unrealistic skid then there is
also something seriously wrong with the simulation. At a risk of being perceived
as parochial, I once again give the Flight Unlimited series the number one ranking in flight
modeling over all. Where they still lead the other simulators by a long shot is in
the way the plane handles closer to the ground. In Flight Unlimited, as you
approach the ground turbulence and wind speed taper off, as happens in the real
world. It may not be important to most simmers but to me it is. I hate the way
the minimum turbulence setting in FS2000 is enough to make the Cessna all but
impossible to flare without ballooning or slamming into the runway. That effect
only happens in the real world in moderate to heavy turbulence. Having said that,
I must point out that in smoother air I find it difficult to fault the best flight
models in FS2000, such as the default Cessnas
and the
FlightSim Developers/DreamFleet Cessna 172,
the Pilatus Porter, the
Beaver and the
R4D-6 or DC3 to name but a few.
Well there you have it. My simming experience is only one of millions and I don’t pretend to assume that it is the ‘right’ one. For me, though, flying one of Peter’s air carrier operations would find me quickly handing over to the first officer and heading back to the cabin to find a flight attendant to chat with, while the autopilot made sure the dials and displays all read what they’re supposed to read. I took up flight simming as a way to fill a need that I can’t afford to fill in the real world, and that need is to feel the joy of flight.
I just have to jump in here! Even though I am an airliner addict, I must admit to being quite fond of some basic Piper Cub flying in the Rockies. I will have an upcoming report on such a dramatic change for me, and it's really worth talking about! - Peter
John Dow
